EVANGELICALS - AREN’T YOU REALLY SAYING:

“LORD HEAL MY LAND BUT DON’T ASK ME TO SEPARATE FROM

THE UNITED CHURCH OF CANADA?”

(An
open letter to evangelicals within and outside the United Church)

By Carman Bradley

“I knew I would have few if any problems with the so-called
liberal churches. Liberal churches do
not usually deeply involve themselves with Scripture.” - Troy Perry, founder of
Metropolitan Community Churches for homosexuals.

Laurie-Ann Zachar,
author of Moderator Controversy,
found that a 1981 Observer poll
showed only 10 per cent of the UCC membership was evangelical. By 2000, Moderator, Marion Pardy, said this
conservative remnant had fallen to 5 per cent (say 30,000 souls). How is it that evangelicals can still be
found in the UCC in spite of the exodus of hundreds of thousands burdened to
flee? Are the remaining evangelicals
offering their best witness for Christ or are they an unwitting shield of
sympathy and false hope for reform, conveniently protecting the majority from
the full castigation of Christendom? And what of their lobbying people to
remain in the UCC? How is the
uninformed on-looker or seeker to differentiate the 5 per cent good from all
the liberalism under the brand name United
Church? Does it matter if the
person in the pew next to you swears same-sex marriage is all right? Is it appropriate if the minister resolves
such differences through a vote? What
should the scriptural-minded do if their congregation votes to perform
homosexual unions?

The status quo witness
of evangelicals inside (and outside) the UCC is simply not good enough given
the times. Dostoevsky warns, “If God is dead, then everything is
justifiable.” And marriage
redefinition will symbolize just such a paradigm shift in our governance, i.e.
the state’s full replacement of our founding Christian worldview with a world
paradigm anchored in secular-humanism.
Professing to be “a mainstream, established Christian church” the UCC
proclaims before the Supreme Court, “there
is no theological impediment that should prevent same-sex marriage,” and “it is absurd to suggest that allowing
same-sex couples to have access to the institution of marriage somehow
undermines the institution.” Moderator Right Rev. Dr. Peter Short lobbied
MPs at a Parliamentary Prayer Breakfast in February, paid for by the UCC: “My hope is that the contribution the United
Church has offered in this debate is a window for politicians to see the
possibility of balancing human rights, tradition, faithfulness, and religious
freedoms by voting in favor of civil same-sex marriage.” No greater
heresy can be committed. As an
evangelical associating with the UCC ask yourself, “If not this, then what
apostasy would trigger my separation from the United Church?”

Equally
disconcerting and symbolic of evangelical misguided
goodwill, if not blindness, is the participation of the Evangelical Fellowship
of Canada with the United Church for Prayer
Launch 2005 in Ottawa. What is the
public (and Christ) to make of such an ironic theological and prayerful
mix? The article covering the Prayer Launch by the Ottawa Citizen highlighted the rally
launch point Dominion-Chalmers United Church.
This congregation is not a member of the National Alliance of
Covenanting Congregations, some 100 reform churches of the UCC’s
3,677 congregations. Indeed, the church minister would not declare the
congregation in disagreement with their denomination’s policies on
homosexuality, although a majority of elders were against performing same-sex
marriages at their church. If most
evangelicals cannot see anything wrong in continuing an association with the
United Church, we should not be surprised when our orthodoxy counts for nothing
with others. The follow-on analysis is
a prayerful attempt to dislodge all evangelicals from complacency and
even complicity in the on-going battle of worldviews, often called “The
Morality Wars” or “who has the right to decide what’s right.”

Rev. Dr. Donald Faris
writes for the Community of Concern
Within The UCC: “With the approval of
gay, lesbian, and bisexual marriage - the foolhardy blessing of behavior that
God condemns - the paganization of the United Church is almost complete.” Rev. Dr. Allen Churchill writes: “Our own United Church is in a state of free
fall…76% of our theological professors think it is not important to affirm
Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord.” In
testimony on behalf of a Wesleyan congregation choosing to separate from the
UCC, Rev. Dr. Victor Shepherd, chair of Wesley Studies at Tyndale Seminary,
said in 1996, “The [UCC] documents on
sexuality cannot be reconciled and would be rejected outright by Wesley. The new Creed and the Amendments to the Hymn
Book ‘Voices United’ are non-Methodist.
The ‘Authority of Scripture’ is totally offensive to Wesley’s 25
Articles and Mending The World violates the principle centre piece of
the Christian Faith…namely the Uniqueness of Jesus Christ.” In 1997, UCC Moderator Right Rev. Dr.
Bill Phipps denied the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ and Christ’s
divinity. When asked, “Is there any truth that the United Church,
or Bill Phipps, agrees with?” Dr. Phipps replied, “The fundamental truth to me in the biblical story is that God loves us
and the world unconditionally…The whole biblical story is one of unconditional
love.” After publication of the Phipps
interview, the UCC leadership backed his response. Indeed, reflecting the level of support for such thinking within
the UCC, Dr. Phipps was the first of the 36 UCC moderators elected on a first
ballot. And the future portends more of
the same. The New Statement of Faith for the UCC, issued for the 2006 General
Council, names God “Mother,” and
speaks of the triune God as the “Creator,
Redeemer and Sustainer.” Jesus Christ is not acknowledged as Lord or the
Son of God. The chronology of events ending in the creation of this
pseudo-Christian church (a denomination empty of biblical Christian theological
content) is as follows (sources are available):

1960
- first religious body to advocate abortion

1962
- sanction divorce and remarriage

1965
- condone pre-marital sex

1968
- issue a New Creed which does not name Jesus as God’s Son, Savior or Lord

1980
- issue sex report In God’s Image:Male
and Female approving of marriage infidelity: “it [fidelity] includes openness to secondary relationships of
emotional intimacy and potential genital expression but with commitment to the
primary marriage.”

1988
- unrepentant homosexuals who profess faith in Jesus can join and gays can be
ordained

1992
- clarify policy on inerrancy of Bible in report “The Authority and
Interpretation of Scripture” -members are “to
engage the Bible to experience the liberating and transforming word of God…with
an awareness of our theological, social and cultural assumptions…with a sense
of sacred mystery and in dynamic interaction with human experience,
understanding and heritage…trusting God’s Spirit to enliven our understanding
and to empower our acting.” - summarized by Moderator Marion Pardy

2003
- amend the resolution from 2000 to redefine marriage inclusive of homosexual
couples. Rev. J. Clark Saunders reports, “Out of over a hundred commissioners, I
saw only four hands raised in opposition to the motion. So I think we can say that the General
Council’s support was overwhelming.” -

2005
- Rev. Dr. Jim Sinclair, General Secretary of the General Council declares, “Marriage will be enhanced, not diminished,
religious freedom will be protected, not threatened, and Canadian society will
be strengthened, not weakened, as a result of this [same-sex marriage]
legislation.”

So why do evangelicals
stay and others outside the UCC partner with the denomination? Cognitive dissonance theory predicts that
people will attend to information that conforms to their values while ignoring
information that is inconsistent with their beliefs. Moreover, once a decision is made (in this case to hold
evangelical beliefs and to remain in association with the UCC) dissonance is
aroused. In response people alter
aspects of the decision alternatives to reduce dissonance, which leads to viewing
the chosen alternative as more desirable and the rejected alternative (fleeing
their apostate denomination or severing ties with longtime UCC associates) as
less desirable. This effect is called
the spreading of alternatives, and the theoretical paradigm is termed the
“free-choice paradigm.” NACC Chairman
Geoff Wilkins describes what may be called evangelical dissonance within the
UCC: “At the end of 2003…membership stood
at 608,243, down a massive 460,692 from 1965... We are an exhausted, depleted church. Those who still have the energy to care,
once again find themselves divided by controversy.” The decline is now in its 39th
consecutive year.

Two possible reasons
why evangelicals associating with the UCC have not entirely smothered in cognitive dissonance is that they have
not fully measured (in their hearts) the magnitude of the apostasy of the
denomination or they do not accept responsibility for the vicarious actions of
the UCC leadership. But these positions
are really chosen states of denial.
Many have succumbed to the liberal epidemic of indifference,
placing denominational loyalty ahead of Scripture. Twenty years ago hope of reform had credibility. However, today the obvious question is
whether there is anything that could dislodge the last evangelicals or cause
outsiders to terminate association. 2
Corinthians 6:14-17 reads,“Do
not be yoked together with unbelievers…what fellowship can light have with
darkness…Therefore come out from them and be separate, says the Lord.” Consider
the heresy disclosed in the following five points.

Is Jesus Christ Savior And Lord? Yes or No! The United Church denies the witness of ex-gays and
ex-lesbians who testify that it was Christ’s grace that freed them. Ignoring scientific evidence for successful
sexual reorientation, UCC theology cleaves to the discredited notions of Derrick
Bailey’s invert theory and the gay gene theory. Bob Davies of Exodus Ministries writes, “Many former homosexuals tell us that there
is only one genuine reason that they have been successful: they have abandoned
homosexuality in obedience to God’s Word.
They see changing their homosexuality as a side effect of an ever bigger
goal: being conformed to the image of Christ.” Christ’s image cannot be
re-cast for self-serving purposes. Freedom
of religion is a Charter value, but not for the preservation of counterfeit
theologies. If the UCC wishes to
downgrade Jesus Christ to be like a gifted sage (Mahatma Gandhi), the
denomination should not claim to be “Christian.” Candice Chellew, editor of Whosoever, an on line magazine for gay
and lesbian “Christians” describes the new image of a pro-gay Christ: “Getting stuck worshipping Jesus as a name,
as a person, or as a Messiah, detracts us from the real goal. Getting to God, becoming the living
embodiment of God here on earth should be our ultimate aim. Jesus points us in the right
direction…Worrying about getting our dogmas right about Jesus and who he is
only leads us to an idolization of Jesus.”

The “window” that UCC theology offers
politicians (and its followers) is not a Christian portal. God’s intent will not be “balanced,” as Right Rev. Dr. Short
suggests,with novel secular-humanist
notions. Scripture speaks of obligations to God and notsecularized notions of inalienable human rights. In its Factum to the
Supreme Court the UCC declares same-sex marriage to be a “constitutionally protected right.” In fact the Charter Preamble states “Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God”
and the Supreme Court did not rule the existing definition of marriage
unconstitutional. Some 76 per cent of
Canadians claim Christianity as their religion. The Holy Bible declares God made humans male and female. Like the designer of a lock and key, God
thought of man and woman simultaneously and made them anatomically matched for
procreation. This heterosexist
worldview is the foundation of our Constitution and also the beliefs of Islam,
Judaism, Sikhism, and indeed Darwinism.
When Canadians speak of tolerance of homosexuality a heterosexist
worldview is implied. UCC theology
rejects heterosexism, ignores a clear and consistent Biblical record against
homosexuality and asserts incorrectly to gays, lesbians, bisexuals and
transsexuals that God is solely unconditional love (total indifference) and
that they will inherit His Kingdom regardless of orientation. Right Rev. Dr. Short writes in a letter to
MPs, “Some will protest that we must have
faith in the Bible, and that the Bible takes an unfavourable view of intimate
same-sex relationship. But I would
answer that Christian faith is not an uncritical repetition of received
text. It is a mindfulcommitment to the power of love, to which
the text seeks to give witness…In fact, change is the only medium in which
faithfulness can truly become faithfulness.
Uncritical repetition is more like being on autopilot…the measure by
which we choose a course of action is the measure of the love of Christ, a
measure that judges even scripture. It
is never legitimate to use the words of scripture to promote a loveless
agenda.”

God Is Not Indifferent To Sexual Orientation. Rev. Jackie Harper,
Program Officer for Family Ministries comments that the UCC understanding of
marriage is grounded in love - “God’s
love for humanity, love between life partners who seek to live in relationships
based on trust, mutuality, and commitment.” The UCC Factum states that
marriage is “one of the fullest
expressions of the covenant between God and humanity” and that to “exclude same-sex couples from this covenant
relationship undermines their basic human dignity.” There is no Scriptural basis for this
assertion and God will not be mocked.
No one has ever caught a sexually transmitted disease from following the
Leviticus Code. On the other hand, UCC
theology simply ignores the unholy nature of homosexual intimacy and denies the
scientific ecological hazards of gay
sex. The very existence of the “Condom
Code” with its inevitable failure rate undermines any notion of virtuous gay
sex. There is nothing dignified about AIDS or other sexually
transmitted diseases. The marriage
covenant between God and humanity is explained in Matthew 19:4-6: “‘Haven’t you read,’Christ replied, ‘that at the beginning the
Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will
leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become
one flesh?’ So they are no longer two,
but one. Therefore what God has joined together let man not separate.” In God’s plan heterosexual marriage is
the pre-condition for sexual intimacy and “one
flesh” is essential for procreation.
Sex outside of the covenant institution of marriage is not to
happen.

God is Not Indifferent To Experimental Sex. UCC
theology offers no guidance to the “wavering youth” - the child who is capable
of either sexual orientation. An
extract from a gay-affirming pamphlet at Calgary Public Schools highlights the
heart of the heresy of such pro-gay thinking: “Our sexuality develops over time.
Don’t worry if you aren’t sure.
The teen years are a time for figuring out what works for you, and
crushes and experimentation are often part of that. Over time you’ll find that you are drawn to men or women - or
both - and you’ll know then.” God is not indifferent. The notion that there is no relationship
between the human body God designed (anatomy and genitalia) and His intent for
gender is false and sexual experimentation is both a trap and a sin.

God Is Not Indifferent To Family Variations. UCC theology overlooks
the inert nature of homosexual union, contends procreation is not the defining
purpose of marriage and claims there are no grounds for marriage
discrimination. Yet redefinition of
marriage opens the right to other sexual orientations. Indeed, the fact neither the Government nor
Supreme Court has raised the marriage rights of bisexuals and polygamists shows
the political and not human rights basis of this issue. The state currently allows marriage between
one man and one woman but discriminates against marriage to a close
relative. This prohibition is so strong
that sex amongst these relations is illegal and is defined as incest. Without human cloning same-sex couples
cannot procreate. If the state now says
marriage is no longer about procreation, then the prohibition on the marriage
of a brother to a sister appears discriminatory and incest a defunct
notion. After disconnecting marriage
from its heterosexual procreative moorings, the question becomes: “Why can’t a
brother have sex with a brother or a father with a son if so oriented?” No offspring are at risk. Ironically, any reference to the morality of
these acts begs the questions: “If it is OK for two men to have sex, why is it
wrong for two brothers?” If they were
married would this make a difference?”
Rev. Jackie Harper, Program Officer for Family Ministries explains UCC
policy, “It is the experience of the
United Church that non-traditional family forms equally advance family
values.” In arguing that same-sex
couples “can and do have and raise
children” the UCC ignores the heterosexual origin of these offspring and
implies indifference to whether a child has either a mother or a father. The pro-gay theology further implies a
biological relationship (one flesh
connection) between a child and its parents is not God’s wish.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ Cannot Be
Divided. The implementation of UCC theology bears witness to its own
irrationality. Right Rev. Dr. Short writes, “If
the local Session denies its clergy the right to conduct same-sex marriages while
in that pastoral relationship, we have a serious conundrum: a congregation
denying its covenanting minister permission to conduct a worship
ceremony.” Choice Okoro, Program
Officer for Human Rights explains that while the UCC unequivocally supports the
right of same-sex couples to have access to marriage, it also unequivocally
supports the right of religious communities to refuse to perform such marriages. She argues, “The United Church does not believe that the faith stance of a
community which supports same-sex marriage undermines the faith stance of a
community that does not.” The UCC Factum explains the “model process” to allow decisions regarding same-sex marriage to
be made at congregational level: “One
congregation decided not to vote. One
congregation, through their Session, decided they were not ready to accept
same-sex marriages in the church building, but would be open to further
discussion about the Minister performing marriages outside the church
building. The third congregation
decided at the Board level not to have a congregational vote, but passed a
motion affirming the present marriage policy which is as follows: That the
Minister may marry people at her discretion if they have a valid marriage
license.” The UCC asserts religious
freedom to the extent of not holding its membership to (any?) denominational
beliefs. What is the isolated
evangelical to do in a pro-gay church, if not leave? The Gospel of Jesus Christ
cannot be adopted piecemeal in self-serving ways to reflect congregational
votes. The Christian faith has nothing
to do with democracy. Parliament can
vote to break the state away from its theist roots, but the revelation of Jesus
Christ is not negotiable. Christianity
is not a political movement. Similar
compromised theology in the Church of Laodicea made Christ sick (Rev 3:16).

Beyond
denial of the significance of their membership and the extent of apostasy of
their denomination, evangelicals within the UCC reduce the cognitive dissonance
in other ways. First, they hold a
diminished view of the impact that their individual or congregational
separation would have for Christ.
Second, they exaggerate the impact their separation would have on
existing salvation outreach ministries.
Indeed, some evangelicals have argued that the liberal identification
with the UCC brand name has
heightened their opportunity for evangelization among street people and
homosexuals. Can any good come of
liberalism? Surely such perspectives
are sub-optimal. These churches uphold
the United Church label to be more inclusive
and market the Gospel to certain
groups, while their denomination thrashes Christ and overturns society on a
national scale. This is selective
parochialism at best. Third, many
submit to the notion that their church facilities will be lost to the
denomination and, therefore, refuse to take the separation step. Even if the loss of property proves true,
remaining in the UCC on the basis of “building extortion” is hardly a Christian
witness. This status implies the
congregation would leave if a new donor gives them a home. Fourth, some hold the unbiblical notion that
a larger congregation of orthodox and liberals is better than a smaller
membership following a split. Fifth,
many hold on to the defunct notion that it is a better witness to be inside the
UCC. What heresy has the inside
evangelical voice prevented? Some 150
same-sex marriages have all ready been performed! And last, some hold a defeatist view that same-sex marriage
legislation is inevitable so why rock the boat and risk any of the above
consequences - if we wait out the problem, it may go away. The problem is not going away and will only
get worse if enacted into law. And like
abortion, the fact it becomes law does not make it right.

When
asked, “How can you endure such apostasy?” some orthodox members have replied,
“We will leave the United Church when God calls us and not before!” In light of the above analysis, this
response seems paradoxical. First, the
liberal 95 per cent of the United Church claim to be called to save the nation from Christian orthodoxy. Second, what of all the orthodox members called to leave? Perhaps they should have stayed. The Community
of Concern give as one of their founding motives, “We
intend to pursue a positive and healing ministry throughout the Church,
encouraging members and congregations to remain within the United Church,
working to resolve our concerns.” The
premise of the NACC is also to remain within the UCC. The Alberta Association of
Covenanting Congregations’ website
states under the title REMEMBER: We are a
group of people and congregations who love the United Church of Canada with all
its diversity. We wish to stay in the
church while upholding traditional Christian values, theology and morals.” One
is reminded of three sailors abroad a vessel which has lost its power in choppy
waters flowing inevitably towards Niagara Falls. They loved their boat which they had painstakingly built over
many years. All prayed for God to
deliver them (and their boat) from disaster.
First, a small tourist boat came by and offered to take them to
safety. But they refused the help
saying no thanks God will rescue us and the boat. They prayed and prayed for power to turn the boat around. A little later a merchant vessel came by and
offered to take them onboard. Although
much weaker from the stress and in far greater peril, they still refused to get
off their boat. They kept praying for
power. A third opportunity came in the
form of a rescue helicopter. A rescue
specialist dropped down to attach them to a pulley. Although completely exhausted with their boat about to go over
the falls they once again rejected the help holding on to their prayer. There have been so many missed turning
points to see the light, to be called out
of the UCC apostasy. Twenty
years of the status quo witness has
not produced the desired result. When
you say, “We will leave the United Church when God
calls us and not before!” reassess reality and consider your motives behind remaining in the boat.

In closing
this letter, here is a vignette of a model witness of hope all should
commend. A small congregation at Grace
Methodist Church in Bermuda was part of a Synod of Wesleyan Methodist Churches
governed by the Maritime Conference of the United Church of Canada. According to Layman News Grace Methodist was one of four “largely black congregations” of the synod that rejected the 1988
UCC decision to ordain homosexuals. In
1993 a majority of the Bermuda synod (consisting of eight churches) voted to
stay in the United Church. Layman News reports,“Congregations with predominantly black membership voted strongly in
favour of leaving the UCC while the larger, racially mixed or predominantly
white congregations voted to stay. At
Grace Methodist, 83 per cent of the congregation voted to leave the synod.” Grace
Methodist elders decided that if the synod would not leave the UCC, then their
congregation would leave the synod. In
1995the congregation, led by elder
Willard Lightbourne, informed synod officials that the church would cease to be
associated with them. Since the 1885
deed to the land stated that the property would revert to the heirs of the
original donors (a Bermuda grocer John Hollis and his wife Susan) unless used
for “religious and moral purposes in
accordance with the doctrine, rules and usages of the Methodist Church and for
no other uses intents and purposes whatever,” the congregation claimed
title to its property. Grace Methodist
argued that the UCC had departed from the teachings of Methodism (Wesleyan
evangelicalism) and in particular from the United Church’s own 1925 Basis of
Union. The synod reacted, claiming that
the property belonged to the UCC and that the synod would take over the Sunday
services on July 1, 1996.

On July 1,
Rev. Victor MacLeod, secretary to the synod arrived at the church with a piano
player to lead services. Willard
Lightbourne also arrived with his organist and the two side-by-side services
began. Rev. MacLeod announced one hymn
and Mr. Lightbourne called another. The
organ being the louder won the day.
Unhappy with the competition, synod officials changed the locks on the
church, but the congregation changed them back. Each side filed lawsuits against the other and eventually, the
suits came before the Bermuda Supreme Court.
Rev. Victor Sheperd, pastor of Streetsville United Church in Mississauga
and chair of Wesley Studies at Tyndale Seminary was an expert witness for Grace
Methodist Church. The Supreme Court
ruled that “neither in its formal
theology nor in its informal theology can the UCC be said to be congruent with
the doctrine of the 25 Articles of the late Rev. John Wesley which is the
foundation upon which the Methodist Church was established…I therefore dismiss
the case entitled action 280/1996 and find for the Plaintiff [Willard Rudolph
Lightbourne].”* Five churches in
the synod have since broken away.

2
Chronicles 7:14 reads: “if my people, who
are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and
turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive
their sin and will heal their land.” What
this avowed “Christian” United Church
has done theologically in Christ’s name over the past forty years is an
absolute spiritual travesty. The
same-sex marriage decision will be a huge turning point in the “Morality Wars.” Regardless of the
outcome, evangelicals of Willard Lightbourne’s conviction will at least be able
to claim they gave their best witness for Christ. Where is the needed humility when
denominational pride and loyalty trump Scripture? Is the act of enduring any heresy for the sake of one’s
denomination not idolatry? The Apostle
James warns: “Anyone, then, who knows the
good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins (4:17).” Edmund Burke puts it this way: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men [and
women] do nothing.” And Burke’s
finger is pointing at us. Most
evangelicals are guilty of complacency.
Where is our counter witness?
The status quo is not working
and Christ deserves more than our second best: “Therefore come out from them and be separate.” Faith without works
is dead.